Risks Involved with Drone Strikes

Since the events of 9/11, drone strikes have become a tool for the United States as it fights a global war against terrorist organizations. The advantages and disadvantages of this particular counterterrorism option continue to be debated. Instead of sending in warfighters to achieve specific objectives, many argue that unmanned combat aerial vehicles provide the U.S. military and government with low-risk and low-cost options as it engages in military operations in other regions of the world. Compared with manned fighter aircraft, some of these unmanned vehicles are able to fly longer without stopping, which affords the U.S. with better intelligence collection and targeting opportunities. Even if the aircraft were shot down, there is not

It is important to analyze the historical implications of UAVs. Would the United states have entered war with Persian Gulf, Kosovo or Iraq if there was potential for retaliation on U.S soil. Would the the United States have entered those wars, if those countries could choose to counter attack with UAVs? A question of proportionate response also creates reasons to believe there are moral downsides to count against using drones. The increase of asymmetric warfare techniques by one side of the conflict leads to the rise of a response in asymmetric warfare by the other side. It is not difficult to see similarities between drones and suicide bombers: one is high tech and the other low tech, neither gives the other

In President Obama’s speech on drone policy, given on May 23, 2013 in Washington D.C., he asserts, “dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield... Simply put, those [drone} strikes have saved lives.” Many American’s support this view. According to a July 18, 2013 Pew Research survey, 61% of Americans supported drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia (Drake). However, this belief that drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networks around the world is widely contested. An opposing viewpoint is that these strikes create more terrorist than they kill. There is a common misperception that drones are precise, killing only the target and entourage. According to a meta-study of drone strikes, between 8 to 17% of all people killed are civilians (Sing). People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone

Though military personnel lives are safer with the presence of drones, many who oppose military drones claim that they have increased the death of civilians and do not create safer environments for civilians (Terrill 22). However, drones have been proved to decrease the deaths of civilians due to the technology that allows them to pinpoint their target and strike at that specific target rather than bomb an area that the target is in. For example, in Yemen where many drone strikes have occurred, “civilian death figures… are ‘in the single digits’” (Terrill 22). Drones are claimed to have less collateral damage than the collateral damage caused by manned aerial vehicles. “They strike quickly, and the missile can be diverted from its original target in an unintentional miss” (Hazelton 30). In the drone strikes in Yemen, even President Hadi admits that there are accidental civilian deaths (Terrill 22). But whether ground troops are used, whether manned aerial vehicles are used, or whether drones are used, there will always be a possibility for collateral damage and civilian deaths. However, President Hadi also admits that “Yemen’s air force cannot bomb accurately at night, but US drones do not have any problems doing so” (Terrill 22).

The general argument made by Natalie Dalziel in her 2014 article “Drone Strikes: Ethics and Strategy” is that U.S. drone strikes have many “strategic consequences” (6). More specifically, she argues that drone strikes “incite” terrorist attacks by “targeting the symptom of the problem rather than the cause” (Dalziel 6). She writes that U.S. drone strikes destabilize and “undermine the legitimacy of governments” where drone strikes occur by turning people to groups like al Qaeda “out of anger” over their government's failure to prevent drone strikes (Dalziel 5).  In addition, she writes that methods like the “signature strike and double-tap” increase the number of civilian casualties which leads to more “retaliation for the strikes” (Dalziel

Ever since 2001 the united states has been using drones known as uavs and predators to locate or destroy terrorists and their out posts, before we used drones it was very expensive to find terrorists as we had to use satellites until we built the Gnat or known as the Predator drone and shortly after the drone was made it was put to work. The Predator drone was used in the mission to find Osama Bin Laden after the september 11 attacks. This adds to the long-time debate over Drone use, there are pros and cons to the use of Drone strikes some believe we should use Drone strikes yet others believe it's ‘’unsafe and has a playstation mentality’’. We should use drones because Drone strike destroy terrorist networks all

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States has engaged in the global war against terrorism. One of the ways that the United States has engaged in this war is through drone strikes. Drones, otherwise less commonly known as UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) or RPAs (Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems) are the subject of debate all around the globe. They were pioneered by former president George W. Bush and became more popular by the use of former president Barack Obama. Drone strikes are most frequently performed in the Middle East and in South Asia. There are many reasons for controversy on the use of the weapon. One of the reasons that it is so controversial as a weapon is that many are unsure as to if the pros of its

Strikes conducted by remotely piloted aircraft may undermine counterterrorism efforts or enhance them depending on the nature of the violence, the precision with which it is applied, or the intentionality attributed to it. (Kalyvas, 2006; Downes, 2007; Kocher et al., 2011) . Existing research has studied the effects of coercive airpower, (Pape, 1996; Horowitz and Reiter, 2001) , targeted killings (Jaeger, 2009; Jordan, 2009; Johnston, 2012; Price, 2012) and civilian victimization (Kalyvas, 2006; Lyall, 2009; Condra and Shapiro, 2012), but social scientists have conducted little empirical analysis of the effects of drone strikes.

Several important ethical and moral concerns have come to the surface regarding drone technology and the issue is currently investigated and even debated in Congress. Until recently, when we hear the word drone, most of us automatically add the word “attack” on the end or think of something negative. That’s because mostly, drones are frequently used for surveillance, intelligence and, ultimately, offensive operations. Drones also known as ‘Unmanned Aerial Vehicles’, or UAV’s are mostly used in situations where manned flight is too difficult or dangerous, making them ideal for warfare. Increasingly, the United States has come to rely on the use of drones to counter the terrorist threats. Drones have arguably produced significant success in dealing with terrorists while limiting civilian casualties and protecting U.S. soldiers, but it has raised some serious ethical concerns. Drones are now going beyond conflict zones to the point that they will be landing on your doorstep in a few years’ time. Drones are also used extensively in scientific researches, for species surveys, terrain mapping, border patrolling, geophysics surveys and many more other applications that yet to develop. Drones increasing use in warfare and other areas raising alarming questions of drone’s ethical & moral implications and it’s environmental effects. And before it’s too late, human kind should address those questions and concerns to avoid any confusion of the future use of drones.

The public discussion about the lethal drones policy, however, has mostly focused on narrow questions of effectiveness: does it kill terrorists, or too many civilians? The debate lacks strategic context and framing.

A large debate has overtaken some of the legal landscape as to whether or not targeted killings are actually legal under the existing international law. Mainly this is a reflecting of the broad geographical scope of the war on terror. One of the biggest legal arguments is the legal status of the targets and if the air strikes can be considered discriminate, proportionate and necessary as stated in the rules of war. Debates about the legitimacy of targeted killings continue to rage. It is precisely this union on the importance of international law that peaks the interest of many so much. One of the main points of argument in the current debate about drones is whether or not the United States is actually at war with those it is targeting. We know that we are at war with terror, but we have never declared war on ISIS. Although this may seem like a relatively trivial concern, it has significant implications for deciding the legality of individual operations. After all, it is the presence or absence of conflict that ultimately decides what body of law is applicable. Within the confines of armed conflict, for example, it is generally expected that the lex specialis of war, which combines elements of both International Humanitarian Law and human rights law, applies (Gregory, T., 2015). The U.S. government has been very clear that it considers itself to be at war with those it is

Drone strikes are cheap, keep America safe from terrorists, and save more Americans’ lives. The agreement of allowing the U.S. to use drone strikes abroad is a vital decision, as it impacts not only the lives of every soldier in the military, but also every citizen in America. By allowing drone strikes abroad, the U.S, is eliminating threats before they even impact the U.S., making sure an event such as 9/11 never, ever, happens

Jurecic, Q. (2015, August 17). Moral Theory and Drone Warfare: A Literature Review. Retrieved from LAWFARE: https://www.lawfareblog.com/moral-theory-and-drone-warfare-literature-review

Over the past few decades, drones have slowly been coming into use, showing astonishing results, such as a 1.5% civilian casualty rate (Lewis 1-9). At first they were only used for surveillance, but now, they are used for much more than that. The military should continue using drones because of the many advantages they have over traditional combat methods, namely fewer civilian casualties, lower expenditures, increased abilities, and the moral responsibility of their use. Despite these facts, there are those who question the use of drones and believe that drones create more threats to our military than they destroy. The advantages of drones provide the U.S. military with an edge over terrorists and will help end the war on terrorism with as little costs and casualties as possible.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, also known as drones, are remote-controlled aircrafts that may be armed with missiles and/or bombs for attack operations. Since September 11th, 2001, known to most as the day terrorist’s attacked the World Trade Center in New York City, the United States has used drones as a defense mechanism in order to eliminate suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other middle eastern countries. Supporters of these UAV’s say that drones have decreased terrorist networks overseas via accurate strikes with minimal civilian fatalities, while non-supporters say that drone strikes produce more